There is no such thing as "irreversible" climate change. The climate will eventually, in some form or degree, continue to change . . . and change repeatedly . . . regardless of whether the human species is here or not.

Australian net greenhouse gas emissions can be zero by 2020 - an outline of how it can be done is at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/a-market-approach-to-reducing-global-emissions/

See also a discussion of the general principle of the approach at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7085

Emissions permits or carbon trading will not work effectively or quickly enough to make a difference. The reasons are as outlined in this article by James Hanson. Make the price of energy of fossil fuel high and it encourages producers to burn more not less.

The ONLY solution is to direct investment in clean energy technologies and we can direct investment efficiently and equitably through market mechanisms as shown in the references above and at http://rewards.edentiti.com

In the long term green energy is economically advantageous because the running cost of solar thermal and geothermal is half the running cost of burning hydrocarbons. We can do it and we can start immediately and not wait for international agreements nor wait for emissions permits systems to be designed.

We have the technology and space today to produce solar thermal and geothermal clean energy for low running costs. All that is lacking is the political will to do it.

Sonofeire, I agree. The world continues, despite humanity.

Whilst claims to irreversibility might suit the childish and emotionally driven arguments of the meddlers and proponents of "Socialism by Stealth", they have no consequence to the earth and quite honestly barely any consequence to the rest of us.

Children, of any age, will always prattle on about the boogey man, the current boogey man is simply the thing they cannot control and feel compelled to make the earth their personal property, which, of course it is not. The earth is the property of all who live here and hopefully the adults will always outnumber the children.

Speaking of which, the one thing we could do to improve the environment is to have fewer children following in our footstep.

Debate on population control and its reduction would be far more productive than all this other childish prattle.

"Irreversible" refers to the point at which changes to the climate are self-compounding and cannot be altered within anyone's lifetime or forseeable future. You willingly missed the point here Sonofeire. Cyclical changes to the climate do occur, though none have been as sudden as that which is happening now nor has it affected civilisation to the degree it is anticipated. Who knows?

There is plenty of evidence we may witness the disappearance of the arctic soon enough. But, I prattle.

The argument is confused. Although high fuel prices are a pain in the short term; they encourage conservation and substitution. If petrol prices are high, more cars are converted to using LNG and so on. As US petrol rpice should be much higher than they are (Government taxes are a big part of prices in Aus, but are lower in the US which encourages waste), he has considerably hide in complaining about those prices.

Higher prices also encourage extraction from oil sands and exploration for more oil, or oil sands, although I don't think that's what the author really wants to hear.

As for the business about supply restrictions, I haven't looked at oil for some time but I do know the stuff about coal is nonsense. the reason no one has tried to estimate coal reserves for some time is that there is still obviously too much of it for the exercise to be worth the trouble. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, and I've never heard of anyone even try to suggest that we are going to be running out any time soon.

Hansen means well but his arguments should be ignored.

Dear oh dear. The horse James is flogging sadly died long ago. Current oil prices are a product of chronic under investment during the period of low prices not a shortage of oil. There is, on current estimates, at least 50 years supply or about 4500 billion barrels of oil in known reserves and all oil producing countries are now investing in exploration and oil field development. This is in addition to exploration in countries not currently producing oil. It appears that James, now rapidly losing any credibility in the global warming debate as the evidence continues to stack up against him, is looking for something else to frighten us with.

In defense of James he is making the quite reasonable claim that the current energy suppliers who burn fossil fuel will do everything in their power to keep the price of energy high and to restrict the development of alternatives. Any sensible rational organisation will do the same. This is what free markets are meant to do. They have no higher calling except to make as much profit as quickly as they can.

If you believe - as James does and increasingly many others that burning fossil fuel is neither environmentally sound or economically efficient then you want to try to stop the burners of fuel burning fuel. There are various ways you can try to do this. The first is to try to artificially price them out of the market but that is doomed to failure. The second is to invest in other alternatives through genuine investment energy infrastructure markets which exclude burning alternatives and that is guaranteed to succeed.

"Dear oh dear" indeed. It would seem that "Senior Victorian" doesn't know too much about the global oil business generally, or petroleum geoscience specifically.

He/she appears to be suggesting that we can significantly increase proven global reserves simply by increasing investment in "exploration and oil field development", and by exploring in new areas. If only it were that simple.

The simple fact is that hydrocarbons will only ever be found where the right geological conditions exist, in certain parts of the world. Oil is not some ubiquitous commodity that can be found anywhere if only we look hard enough for it.

And even when we are exploring in those areas where the geological conditions are suitable, there are the questions of how much we will find and how hard (read costly) it will be to extract. As we drill in ever-deeper water (in the case of offshore exploration), the size of new discoveries has steadily decreased. There are certaily no more super-giant fields left to find, let alone any with cheaply extractable oil.

To those who glibly say "climate change is happening whether we are here or not", well let's just suppose for a moment that we are not the cause - for argument's sake. Let's just pretend that climate change is just a 'natural occurrence' - nothing to do with all the coal and oil we have extracted and spewed into the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Even then, if the rapid climate change that is actually happening before our eyes is not attended to, then we can forget about any social justice issues, or whether or not Australia becomes a Republic, or reacting against terrorism, or any bright ideas from a 2020 forum... or any of the multitude of issues raised on OLO postings. Because all of these multifarious issues will be subsumed by the dramatic changes foisted on society by climate change.

Let's pretend that we are not the cause, if we can't bear to face that notion, but it still leaves society in much the same quandary, does it not? Do nothing or do something.

I tend to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus that 1) it is happening and 2) we are the cause.

Even if only 1) is correct then our response needs to be much the same as if both are correct.

Therefore the denialists have no choice but to refute both. And that, my friends, takes some talking up because most ordinary lay people have witnessed significant climate changes in their own lifetimes. They don't need the graphic news about receding ice and unprecedented weather statistics and IPCC reports.

On my estimate the clock has already run out, especially taking into account the ponderous global decision-making processes that are in place. But I am all ears if anybody can persuade me we still have time to put on the brakes.

In fact the only mature and sensible thing for society to do is put on the brakes anyway and try to avert the worst.

Gecko,
climate change denialists characteristically say it's either not happening at all or that whatever changes take place will be minimal. One poster here awhile ago said the Nordic countries would probably enjoy a 5C increase - it would let them go swimming. Not everyone has got their head around what climate change really is.

But you're spot on about one thing. What dominates front pages today -Iraq, the middle east in general, dwindling resources - will become page 5 material. That's be about the time denialists start turning off the lights when they leave the room

For the sake of argument (sorry Jim) let’s pretend global warming is not happening.

What threat to our comfort zone will it take for us to live in a more sustainable way?

Food for thought can be found here:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3871

Any comments?

1. It is manifestly untrue for anyone to claim, as one poster here did, that climate change has NEVER happened with the cyclical speed that it is alleged to be undergoing now. Anyone who has any serious awareness of the geological and climatological record should know such a claim cannot be given any respect. OVERALL temperature changes within the past 100 years have been minuscule compared to other periods in human history before the Industrial Revolution. The Discovery science channel, for example, reported that, in the known geological record of human history, world-wide average temperatures have varied by as much as 27 degrees.
2. We should at least have the humility to admit that there are still a myriad number of things about the world's ecosystems and climate that we, collectively, simply do not understand. There is a great deal we still do not know about variations in solar activity. There is also much that science is trying to understand about how activity at the Earth's core may affect changes on the surface. Contrary to a lot of pompous certitude expressed by celebrities, the science is not "in" on the primary causes of climate change.
3. Here in the U.S.A. where I live, it is known that there is a HUGE . . . and as yet untapped . . . new oil field under the Gulf of Mexico, and another in Colorado . . . enough to make the U.S. self-sufficient in oil for 150 years. Environmental litigation has slowed development.
4. As long as human societies are either unwilling or unable to control the growth of their own populations, there will, inevitably, be more people needing more land, more housing, more water, more food, more medical services and more demands for government assistance. Under such conditions, it will be virtually impossible to stop the continued destruction of wildlife habitat and natural resources . . . regardless of what political ideology is in charge. It is palpably clear that Marxist regimes have been every bit as rapacious of the natural environment as any private corporation.

Ah ha, sonofeire,

Coming from the horses mouth in America, which consumes something like quarter of the world's resources, we are told not to worry, there's plenty of oil left in the ground if only environmentalists hadn't curtailed its development. Hmmmm.... a bit rich.

I could swallow your argument that dramatic climate changes have happened before therefore we, like the dinosaurs, just have to wait and see our fate.

Trouble is that's only one argument out of the denialists lexicon of arguments.

Look, I've heard everything from it isn't happening, to so what if it is to its a natural phenomenon to the real problem is population stupid let us get on with our rampant consumption without all those Asian hordes gobbling up the resources we are squandering.

Fortunately the majority of folk around, seeing that climate change no longer threatens some distant 'future generations' but this very generation (i.e. us) have their eyes open and at least want to respond in ways that lessen the threat. Many find this a difficult challenge because we are not only hooked by habit, all of our institutions and infrastructure goad us into a life of rampant consumption. But still, they are courageous enough to face the facts.

Whenever there is significant social change some folks don't like it. They get bitter and twisted and develop all sorts of conspiracy theories and hatreds. This is a natural response to social change. I remember well the bitterness and social division that surrounded the gender debates that eventually liberated women from the worst of domestic violence and servitude. I have read about how bitter and twisted some folks got when slavery was abolished.

But at the end of the day it all settles down. And we wonder what all the fuss was about. And we look back with wonder at the ridiculous things society did only half a century before.

So cheer up folks, I am looking forward to the new low-carbon society. There will be many more gains than losses.

Sonofeire

I have not seen the television documentary you mention so this statement needs clarifying;

“in the known geological record of human history, world-wide average temperatures have varied by as much as 27 degrees.”

This may seem pedantic but so many comments in the media and blogosphere get distorted by misrepresentation.
What is your (or Discovery Channel’s) definition of “world-wide average temperatures”? Is it the same as Global Mean and is it differentiated between regions (NH, SH, land mass, oceans, etc)?

My understanding of the Holocene era is that temperature anomalies did not differ “by as much as 27 degrees.” And are you talking Celsius (Kelvin) or Fahrenheit?

In any event, I can understand why Hansen is somewhat of an alarmist. I came across this snippet sometime ago. It was published in Fortune Magazine and was based on a report made public by the Pentagon, no doubt causing some controversy over in your neck-of-the-woods.

The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm

A figure of speech, but it does make you shudder!

"A figure of speech, but it does make you shudder!"
More like laugh....this global warming is making it frickin freezing!
Lots of "what-ifs", "maybes", "possibilities"....likely?? hmm maybe not

"Courageous enough to face the facts"?

Gecko, my friend, that word, "facts", is exactly the issue here.
You can gather "your" expert's facts, then I can gather "my" expert's facts . . . they will still not agree.
It is a paradox that contradictory data can exist simultaneously, yet all be true . . . because they all reveal a PART of the total picture.
I NEVER said that climate change is not happening. I simply have not been convinced that it is happening at the "cataclysmic" speed that some pundits claim it is. However, contrary to Al Gore's propaganda, it is manifestly untrue for anyone to claim there is an "overwhelming" consensus that the causes of climate change are PRIMARILY man-made. If you type a few key words on the Internet, you will find a number of investigative reports detailing what went on BEHIND the creation of the so-called "unanimous" U.N. report on climate change. It appears that the real "consensus" was anything but unanimous, and that dissenters were pressured, intimidated and cajoled by diplomats and politicians -- from various authoritarian regimes and the U.N. -- to "revise" their opinions . . . . even to the point of being threatened with a loss of funding for their research. "Nanny-state" governments have an obvious incentive for pushing more state control.
Yes, the U.S. does consume a large part of the world's resources . . . more than it should. It also has produced, and still does, a huge amount of the world's technical research, as well as innovation in medical and industrial technology . . . including environmental technology.
Is your beautiful country of Australia prepared to spend endless billions of dollars, at the risk of damaging the stability of its own economy and the welfare of its people, in order to halt the release of an element that may very well be only PART of a much larger equation . . . even as China has just surpassed the U.S. in the production of carbon emissions?

sonofeire, from the US, are you? A piece of advise mate: Australians are less likely to swallow outright bull than some of your countrymen, so try not to lay it on too thick.

Not sure what you are referring to as the HUGE Gulf of Mexico oil field. Every major oil field in the gulf is in decline except Jack 2. Jack 2 may contain around 15 billion barrels. The US chews 318 billon barrels a year. On that basis 150 years looks a tad optimistic - 15 days would be closer.

And the other thing - that consensus. Climate change seem seems to be ideal territory for a good argument. You could take just about any position and then find a weather pattern in some part of the world supporting it. But a consensus - well its real easy to measure. No need to argue about it. You just count the for's and against - and there you have it

Happily someone has already done the counting. A survey was taken of scientific papers on climate published in a range of journals between 1993 and 2003, there were 0 (ie, nil, none) out of the 928 found arguing that the current climate change was caused by natural events. Now I know you Americans have had your problems with counting things like votes recently, but 0 isn't a very hard number to count to. Even allowing for the inevitable politicking you mention distorting that 0 a small bit - or even a big bit, it still looks like a consensus to me.

Gecko “then we can forget about any social justice issues,”

Wasting time on so called “social-justice” is like masturbation, it provides some momentary satisfaction to the practitioner, whilst achieving sweet F.A.

“I tend to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus that 1) it is happening and 2) we are the cause.
Even if only 1) is correct then our response needs to be much the same as if both are correct.”

Dumb idea because:

basing a strategy on the possibility or otherwise of “2)” alters the range of available and effective potential options which can be contemplated.

Add to that, the fact that the scientific community is not in consensus plus the scientific community is not the only “stake holder” further invalidates the preface to your suggestion.

“On my estimate the clock has already run out,”

Your “estimate” I would suggest is a parochial instinct, based on emotional knee jerking?

“In fact the only mature and sensible thing for society to do is put on the brakes anyway and try to avert the worst.”

So you are going to be employed 3 hours a week, mulching grass clippings to recycle back into the nature strip?

You might be putting the “brakes on” but I will be going “full bore”, as usual.

As for “The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.”

More drivel from the pretentious wannabe, who cannot produce any scientific credentials.

Some would suggest Oscar Wilde’s play “The Importance of Being Earnest” presented a “dramatic but plausible scenario” and a better amusement than the doomsayers of the climate-change movement, who could have come from Brazil, as Oscar wrote “Where the nuts come from”.

Sonofeire “that word, "facts", is exactly the issue here.”

Exactly.

Just a bunch of theories which wax and wane with the moon, the scientific luminaries appearing more like scientific lunaries. The source data is sparse and the significance of individual measure undetermined. There is no “science” of climate change, just wannabes seeking soft government grants.

Listen you guys whether climate change is real or not, the fact is pollution in all forms is bad. If you don't believe this stick your mouth around an exhaust pipe and turn the car on.

There are some pretty simple things that can be done now. How about all government cars and private cars must be 4 cyclinders or less. WOW - what a saving $$$$$. Make a low cost gas car, solar car.

No more expenditure on new roads - spend it on public transport.

Make manufacturers responsible for their packaging. eg all packaging goes back to the supermarket.

We used to have a small bin for garbage - now we have 4 times the size. Are we getting smarter or dumber? Give everyone with a house a compost bin!

Give everyone a pool blanket! As soon as you give rebates the manufacturers put the price up.

Retrofit all appliances with a TOTAL OFF SWITCH - no standby allowed on new appliances.

It really does concern me when governments can't agree on a NO BRAINER like - no plastic bags!!

Look, "rstuart",

Setting aside your condescending tone for the moment . . . as I have already said, anyone can present "your" experts' facts . . . then I can present "my" experts' facts . . . they, and we, will continue to argue until hell freezes over or we all go up in a ball of flame. I have known many scientists personally. I am, by nature, inherently skeptical of ANY "sacred cow" dogma, especially when it is wrapped in the claim of "absolute" scientific consensus . . . given the fact that most scientists are specialists.
I live in the U.S., I've been to the Gulf of Mexico many times. I've read and studied numerous articles and papers about the oil industry -- both pro and con -- and the evidence of new reserves. There is simply not room enough to go into detail in this Forum about all the supporting evidence for new reserves. I have reams of documents, pro and con. I can only tell you that your statements about the Gulf do not agree with most of the written material I have studied, and the conversations I have had with professionals in the industry. When I have the time, I will make the effort to post the many sources on this forum. In the meantime, I would be interested to know the specific source of the one alleged study you mention, which you say contained data about 928 scientific papers. Have you actually read the study yourself, in its entirety? What was the specific methodology used in gathering those particular scientific papers into the study? What was the criteria used for choosing them over others? If not even ONE of the papers took a skeptical view of the "consensus", I would have to ask how serious the study's organizers were in actually LOOKING for alternative voices in the scientific community. I have personally read several articles about the disputes among those involved with the U.N. report. No one has to take my word for it. Just take the time to punch in a few keywords.

Umm … Col, that drivel came from the Pentagon.

If you have a problem with their report, go have a rant to them (suggest you leave the ad homs at home, it will help your credibility, IMHO).

Sonofeire

You may have missed it but since you are back I’d like to ask again. My understanding of the Holocene is that temperature anomalies did not differ “by as much as 27 degrees.” Are you talking Celsius (Kelvin) or Fahrenheit?

Q&A “Col, that drivel came from the Pentagon.”

Not sure what drivel you are talking about, wannabe, since you do not reference it by inference or quote ?

How very inexact of you, exactness being something which, I believe is a prerequisite of real science and real scientists.

“(suggest you leave the ad homs at home, it will help your credibility, IMHO).”

Observings ad homs when you refer to something which you imprecisely describe as ‘drivel’ sucks of “hypocrisy”.

Maybe that is what IMHO means – “in my hypocritical opinion”. It certainly does not refer to your “humble opinion”.

Nothing of your patronizing and Self-aggrandizing posts are ever humble.

It all makes you sound a little rattled Q&A, like the rattle of the empty bucket, being blown around by the winds of climate change.

salute

Col dear, for your reference, on 29/4 in this thread I say to Sonofeire :

The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm

It was published in Fortune Magazine and was based on a report made public by the Pentagon.

To which you reply (same day):

“As for “The “dramatic but plausible scenario” describes precisely the abrupt changes (temporal and spatial) that you say have happened in the past.

More drivel from the pretentious wannabe, who cannot produce any scientific credentials.

Some would suggest Oscar Wilde’s play “The Importance of Being Earnest” presented a “dramatic but plausible scenario” and a better amusement than the doomsayers of the climate-change movement, who could have come from Brazil, as Oscar wrote “Where the nuts come from”.

Now, I know it’s early, but is this clear enough for you?

sonofeire, my tone was over the top - but when things are as plain as the nose on your face and people still deny them its hard not to be condescending.

Its seems to me you are living in some sort on fantasy land. On the planet I live on the price of oil hit a new all-time high last night - $120 per barrel. And I thought it was known to man+dog the US hasn't been self sufficient in oil since the 1970's - and its not like they haven't been looking. The idea that within US there is an commercially viable oil field with 150 years supply at todays consumption rates - which by the way is around 3 times the amount of oil consumed by the US during its entire existence so far, is right up there with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. As I sit here typing this I am wondering "why are you bothering to reply to a person with such a loose grip on reality?" I haven't come up with an answer yet, which is a bit of a worry.

To answer your other questions regarding the review of 928 papers. You can find the review here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

I thought it was rather well known. I won't answer your other questions about how review was conducted as I now think I would be wasting my time. If you are really interested in the answers you can read it yourself. It is a very easy read - only one page long.